** I hesitate to be put in a position to defend Protestantism**, but coming from a mixed background (French Canadian Catholic and ‘old Yankee’ Protestant) I think I know something about both of these expressions of the Christian faith.
** There are brilliant scholars and devout communicants in both, and the notion that Protestant thinking can be dismissed off-hand as contrary to scripture - for example - is absurd.** If you have ever dealt with Protestant clergy, especially of mainline denominations, with their advanced degrees (four years of college, three years of seminary, and often more) you would be aware that they have weighed such Catholic teachings as transubstantiation and various Marian dogmas and simply disagree with them. Scripture is not very precise regardless of what traditionalist Catholics (and fundamentalist Protestants, too) may claim. From the very outset of Christianity learned scholars have debated what various scriptural passages mean - i. e., which ones are to be taken literally, and which ones may be seen symbolically.
** The principal difference, when everything else is set aside, is the question of authority**. Catholicism teaches that when the Magisterium comes to an official conclusion, then every faithful Catholic must assent to that conclusion. Thus, beginning in 1864 (as I recall the date) every Catholic had to believe in the Immaculate Conception and since 1950 they must believe in the Assumption of Mary, though these are among theological concepts which are very difficult to support from scripture. There simply isn’t clear-cut Biblical confirmation. All Protestants, by the way, honor Mary. They simply don’t practice the same veneration as Catholics do.
Code:
**Mainline Protestantism, for better or worse, permits wide variation on many matters. **In the same Methodist or Episcopal or Presbyterian parish etc. you will find people who believe literally in scripture (Adam and Eve forward) while others will consider, say, the first eleven chapters of Genesis as a mixture of parable, legend and myth. Some will accept the Biblical account which says in I Kings 2:23ff that when youth mocked Elisha because of his baldness Elisha cursed them in the name of the Lord and two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled them. Others will question this story, and certainly doubt that God would send three she-bears to punish the youth in such a violent way for such a minor offense. Give reasonable thinking people a break!
We could go on and on.
** All I’m saying is that there should be room in Christianity for different views when it comes to scripture and various doctrines.** This lack of such freedom within Catholicism is one reason as many as 30,000,000 American Catholics have defected. And I read somewhere (the magazine
US Catholic, as I recall), that over 50% of self-described Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation, a central dogma of the Church.
As far as totalitarianism is concerned, if a society is ruled by one and only one religion, and all other faiths are forbidden or extremely regulated, I would call that religious totalitarianism. I would, for example, call Saudi Arabia a religious totalitarian state. I’ve found it curious and embarrassing that three of the major totalitarian states in modern times were led by men who were baptized Catholic or Orthodox - Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Some would add Franco, whose Falangist regime in Spain did not permit freedom for Protestantism, except where certain foreign consulates (like that of UK) existed.
** God bless Catholics, Protestants and people of every creed**, color, culture and country. Let us make religion a bridge and not a barrier.
